More on Guns

I don’t have anything I’d put into an essay, but I have a lot of stray thoughts regarding the current “debate.” And yes, I’m being sarcastic because gun control advocates aren’t interested in a debate- they want to do something, anything. The only “debate” they want is how far they should go and the notion that other options event exist is completely out of bounds.

Before I list my gun control thoughts, I’ll also note that the current “debate” is following a similar arc to previous ones. Namely, Democrats come up with a problem they want to deal with and the “debate” starts. When it becomes clear that their opponents don’t agree with the Democrat’s solutions, Democrats quickly move to declaring their opponents “unserious.” Finally, they pass legislation or, as more recently they can’t just ram legislation through because of split government, they take to lamenting the “unseriousness”, “selfishness”, or whatever other form of demagoguery they can muster. The notion that someone else could think something what’s “best for the country” and have it not be exactly what Democrats think doesn’t seem to occur to them.

With that, here we go:

• Kevin Drum basically wants some kind of gun legislation and is apparently on board with passing it by any means necessary. His second statement starts “I’m all in favor of Congress taking some action to regulate guns, …” He states it so breezily that a reader might think that the gun market is completely unregulated, which is unequivocally false. For a small sampling, it is illegal to sell fully-automatic weapons to civilians.

  Further, and I hold Mr. Drum up as paragon of this particular rationale, there is no attempt to connect the regulation to the crime. “Newtown was so uniquely horrific that something has to happen” Mr. Drum states. Nothing like passing silly symbolic legislation that makes the lives of normal, law abiding citizens more difficult with the only rationale that “something had to be done.”

• I’ve come to the conclusion that the only thing that might stop a future massacre in a school setting is allowing some kind of exemption for the “gun free zone.” Yes, this means I basically agree with Wayne Lapierre- at least let me justify it.

  1. Guns are here to stay for the foreseeable future. There are likely over 300 million in civilian possession. There no chance that changes. An outright ban that started now would be meaningless and a buyback program would do little to dent it. People want their guns in this country. Further, all evidence and common sense leads me to the conclusion that any ban at this point would only ensure criminals end up with guns. I read somewhere that the shooter at Newtown violated 40 something laws before he shot his first victim- think about that.

  2. There is no law that can be passed today that would have prevented the Newtown massacre. None. I understand this is frustrating, but that’s the reality we live in.

  3. The evidence we have about the personalities of mass shooters is they live in a fantasy world which is readily ruined. They are not, for instance, suicide bombers with a higher calling. Confronting them can quickly bring about an endgame that saves lives.

  4. This will piss people off, but I happen to believe it’s also a very unfortunate fact: the procedure that the teacher’s went through at Newtown lined up those children for slaughter. The teacher had no chance to stop the shooter once he arrived at the class room, locking the door was meaningless. The police arrived 20 minutes too late. The only reason the entire school wasn’t slaughtered was because the miserable piece of excrement shot himself.

  Given all of this, I think the only thing that has a chance of working is that a first responder already be on the premises. Yes, I also think there would be a preventative affect as well. What’s known about mass shooters points to the fact that they are drawn to helplessness- they typically choose targets where they know they won’t be confronted. The Aurora shooting this past Summer is an example- there were plenty of theatres in the immediate vicinity but he chose the one that had a gun ban.

  What form does this take? Well, I think some kind of general ability to wave the gun ban for qualified individuals is the way to go. Perhaps that means teachers and administrators can have concealed carry; or some kind of armed personnel like a security guard or police is on site. Notice I didn’t say “lift the gun bans”, I said “make qualified exceptions.”

• I find the notion that the NRA or that gun owners in general are culpable for what happened odious. The NRA lobbies on the behalf of law abiding citizens and the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Using this form of demagoguery is absurd. Personally, people pushing this argument should be slapped, hard.

  Don’t agree? Well, then how about we agree that all people who voted for President Obama are culpable in the murder of children by drone strikes. If the shoes fits, as they say.

  I’ll say it clearly because it can’t be said enough: the shooter at Newtown is the criminal and he deserves the disgust and anger of everyone. Law abiding citizens did not kill those teachers and children.

• Smaller magazines or lower capacity clips will be meaningless. Criminals will make their own higher capacity clips, and those in circulation will remain.

• Banning “assault weapons* is meaningless drivel. First, no one can even define what an “assault weapon” is. Second, criminals won’t care and will end up with them anyway.

• Gun control advocates get sick and tired of hearing the same reasons and arguments, but that doesn’t make them any less potent. It means they haven’t come up with a proper counter idea, argument or rationale. They can’t wave those reasons and the rationale away by waving their hands and screaming “something has to be done.”

• The statistics regarding the “successes” of gun control are highly debatable and abusable to the point, in my mind, that they are largely meaningless. Certain forms of gun violence go down, while others increase dramatically. I’ll agree that in an ideal world, guns don’t exist. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in and we can’t legislate our way into it.

Anyway, that’s it. If you’re a gun control advocate then I’m firmly in the “fanatic” zone at this point. That said, at least I have logic and reason on my side.